The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Waning Protection after Fifth Dose of Acellular Pertussis Vaccine in Children
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: In the United States, children receive five doses of diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccine before 7 years of age. The duration of protection after five doses of DTaP is unknown. METHODS: We assessed the risk of pertussis in children in California relative to the time since the fifth dose of DTaP from 2006 to 2011. This period included a large outbreak in 2010. We conducted a case-control study involving members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California who were vaccinated with DTaP at 47 to 84 months of age. We compared children with pertussis confirmed by a positive polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) assay with two sets of controls: those who were PCR-negative for pertussis and closely matched controls from the general population of health-plan members. We used logistic regression to examine the risk of pertussis in relation to the duration of time since the fifth DTaP dose. Children who received whole-cell pertussis vaccine during infancy or who received any pertussis-containing vaccine after their fifth dose of DTaP were excluded. RESULTS: We compared 277 children, 4 to 12 years of age, who were PCR-positive for pertussis with 3318 PCR-negative controls and 6086 matched controls. PCR-positive children were more likely to have received the fifth DTaP dose earlier than PCR-negative controls (P<0.001) or matched controls (P=0.005). Comparison with PCR-negative controls yielded an odds ratio of 1.42 (95% confidence interval, 1.21 to 1.66), indicating that after the fifth dose of DTaP, the odds of acquiring pertussis increased by an average of 42% per year. CONCLUSIONS: Protection against pertussis waned during the 5 years after the fifth dose of DTaP. (Funded by Kaiser Permanente).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Warfel, J. M., Zimmerman, L. I., & Merkel, T. J. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1314688110 · Cited by 644
Munoz, F. M., Bond, N. H., Maccato, M., Pinell, P., Hammill, H. A., Swamy, G. K., Walter, E. B., Jackson, L. A., Englund, J. A., Edwards, M. S., et al. (2014) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2014.3633 · Cited by 489
Liang, J. L., Tiwari, T., Moro, P., Messonnier, N. E., Reingold, A., Sawyer, M., & Clark, T. A. (2018) · MMWR. Recommendations and Reports · doi:10.15585/mmwr.rr6702a1 · Cited by 457
Pertussis: Microbiology, Disease, Treatment, and Prevention
Kilgore, P. E., Salim, A. M., Zervos, M. J., & Schmitt, H.-J. (2016) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.00083-15 · Cited by 434
Geospatial analysis of nonmedical vaccine exemptions and pertussis outbreaks in the United States
Aloe, C., Kulldorff, M., & Bloom, B. R. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1700240114 · Cited by 51
Metadata
- Authors
- Klein, N. P., Bartlett, J., Rowhani-Rahbar, A., Fireman, B., & Baxter, R.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2012-09-13
- Volume
- 367
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1012-1019
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2158985300
- Cited by
- 581
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 52.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Waning Protection after Fifth Dose of Acellular Pertussis Vaccine in Children. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa1200850
- The paper
- Klein, N. P., Bartlett, J., Rowhani-Rahbar, A., Fireman, B., & Baxter, R. (2012). Waning Protection after Fifth Dose of Acellular Pertussis Vaccine in Children. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1200850
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.